Final answer:
The statement about absolute freedom of speech is not correct; while the First Amendment offers broad protections, there are limits to prevent harm. Examples of non-protected speech include threats, incitement, and defamation. Laws balance individual rights with societal interests, with cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan illustrating these complexities.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "My right to free speech means you can't stop me from saying anything I want to." is not entirely valid. While the First Amendment protection is vast, it is not absolute. There are established restrictions on freedom of speech to protect other rights and public order. For instance, incitement of a criminal act, "fighting words," genuine threats, defamation (including slander and libel), obscenity, and breaches of national security are among the types of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. The balance between individual rights and society's interests are considered, and restrictions are imposed when speech acts are deemed to cause clear and present danger or create substantial harm. Additionally, while political speech receives a high degree of protection, even it is subject to limitations, such as preventing perjury or making threats against individuals.
The consequence of free speech that falls into one of these unprotected categories might involve legal actions like lawsuits for defamation or criminal charges for threats or incitement. For example, the courts have established that while individuals can express distaste for political figures and even tell lies about them, direct threats or lies that cause harm to private individuals can lead to legal ramifications. The case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan highlighted the importance of free speech in public discourse but also set a higher standard for public officials to claim defamation. Nonetheless, these principles are in place to ensure that freedom of speech does not infringe upon other essential societal values.